Indiana Dept. of Public Welfare v. Clark, 1-1184A285
| Docket Nº | No. 1-1184A285 |
| Citation | 478 N.E.2d 699 |
| Case Date | May 30, 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 699
Individually and as Acting Director of the Indiana
Department of Public Welfare, Appellants,
v.
Nannie CLARK, Appellee.
First District.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1985.
Page 700
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon E. White, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellants.
Jamie L. Weinberg, Susan A. Failey, Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc., Bloomington, for appellee.
RATLIFF, Presiding Judge.
The Indiana Department of Public Welfare (Department) appeals the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Nannie Clark (Clark) for the Department's unconstitutional denial of Clark's request for medicaid payments. We reverse.
On November 19, 1980, Clark submitted a request by her dentist to the Department
Page 701
to obtain prior approval for payment for partial dentures. The Department denied the request on November 26, 1980. From this denial, Clark pursued her administrative remedies. A hearing was held before a Department hearing officer who upheld the denial of Clark's request. Clark appealed this decision to the State Board of Public Welfare (Board). On August 24, 1981, the Board notified Clark that it affirmed the denial of prior payment.On September 9, 1981, Clark filed a complaint consisting of two counts in Monroe Superior Court. The first count requested judicial review, pursuant to the Indiana Administrative Adjudication Act (AAA), of the Board's decision. The second count alleged the Department and Robert Smith in his official capacity as the Department's director, violated, inter alia, Clark's equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This count sought relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the form of compensatory damages for injuries sustained throughout the period of the alleged wrongful denial of her request for dentures.
The trial court, on discovering that the tape of the administrative hearing had been erased before transcription, remanded the case for another hearing. The trial court, however, retained jurisdiction. At the rehearing, the Department reversed itself. It agreed that Clark's request for prior payment should be granted and issued its new decision on July 22, 1982.
Clark then pursued her claim for damages under Sec. 1983. She filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Clark's motion and awarded her $1,000 in damages. The Department appeals.
Due to our decision we address only the single issue of whether the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) (Indiana Code sections 34-4-16.5-1 to 34-4-16.5-19) applies to Clark's Sec. 1983 action.
To determine whether the ITCA applies to Clark's Sec. 1983 action we must determine the scope of the act. Ind.Code Sec. 34-4-16.5-1 states that the ITCA applies to suits or claims in tort. Therefore, the initial inquiry involves characterization of the nature of Clark's claim.
Clark argues that as a matter of state law, the ITCA was not intended to apply to Sec. 1983 actions. In Luker v. Nelson (N.D.Ill.1972) 341 F.Supp. 111, the federal district court interpreted the Illinois Governmental Immunity Act holding it did not apply to a Sec. 1983 action. The court reviewed the statute and a number of Illinois court interpretations and reasoned that the act was intended to apply only to traditional common law torts committed by public officials. This decision has led Illinois state courts to adopt the general rule that the act does not apply to Sec. 1983 actions brought in state court. Firestone v. Fritz (1983) 119 Ill.App.3d 685, 75 Ill.Dec. 83, 456 N.E.2d 904.
If the interpretations of the ITCA by Indiana courts likewise supported the ITCA's application to traditional common law torts only, we would be inclined to adopt the Illinois analysis. However, no basis in state law exists to support such a distinction. In fact, in addition to actions involving common law torts our courts have required compliance with the ITCA in actions involving statutorily created rights; most notably in wrongful death actions. See e.g., Scott County v. Stamper (1981), Ind.App., 425 N.E.2d 264, trans. denied (180 day notice provision applied in wrongful death action against political subdivision); Speidel v. State (1979), Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d 180, trans. denied (Ind.Code Sec. 34-4-16.5-17 applies in wrongful death actions). Moreover, in City of Terre Haute v. Brighton (1983), Ind.App., 450 N.E.2d 1039, trans. denied, a Sec. 1983 claim was brought against the city by certain firemen and the city argued the suit was precluded because of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the ITCA notice requirement. This court's holding that the ITCA was inapplicable
Page 702
was not based on a general rule that Sec. 1983 suits are outside the scope of the act. Rather, our decision was restricted to the facts of the case which revealed the suit was not in tort but rather contractual in nature. 1 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the ITCA is inapplicable to Sec. 1983 actions brought in state court.Next, Clark argues that as a matter of federal law, Sec. 1983 cases should not be characterized as torts. Movement for Opportunity v. General Motors (7th Cir.1980), 622 F.2d 1235, 1242. This precise issue was addressed by the supreme court in Wilson v. Garcia (1985), --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254. The Court held that Sec. 1983 suits are most properly characterized as torts. "Congress unquestionably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.A.W. v. State, 32A01-9212-CV-415
...the claim. Hasty v. Floyd Memorial Hosp. (1992), Ind.App., 612 N.E.2d 119, 123; Indiana Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. Clark (1985), Ind.App., 478 N.E.2d 699, 702-03, cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1170, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986). In order to constitute substantial compliance the notice must ......
-
Fuchilla v. Layman
...139 Wis.2d 614, 408 N.W.2d 19, cert. granted, 484 U.S. 942, 108 S.Ct. 326, 98 L.Ed.2d 354 (1987); Indiana Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Clark, 478 N.E.2d 699 (Ct.App.1985), cert. den., 476 U.S. 1170, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986); Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, 464 N.Y.S.2d 70......
-
423 South Salina Street, Inc. v. City of Syracuse
...Cardo discussed above, are Deary v. Three Un-named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3rd Cir.) and Indiana Dept. of Public Welfare v. Clark, 478 N.E.2d 699, cert. denied 476 U.S. 1170, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d...
-
Felder v. Casey, 85-1344
...apply to all actions, including actions founded on civil rights violations. The city cites Indiana Dept. of Public Welfare v. Clark, 478 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986), as an example. In Clark, the Indiana court decided that c......
-
J.A.W. v. State, 32A01-9212-CV-415
...the claim. Hasty v. Floyd Memorial Hosp. (1992), Ind.App., 612 N.E.2d 119, 123; Indiana Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. Clark (1985), Ind.App., 478 N.E.2d 699, 702-03, cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1170, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986). In order to constitute substantial compliance the notice must ......
-
Fuchilla v. Layman
...139 Wis.2d 614, 408 N.W.2d 19, cert. granted, 484 U.S. 942, 108 S.Ct. 326, 98 L.Ed.2d 354 (1987); Indiana Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Clark, 478 N.E.2d 699 (Ct.App.1985), cert. den., 476 U.S. 1170, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986); Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, 464 N.Y.S.2d 70......
-
423 South Salina Street, Inc. v. City of Syracuse
...Cardo discussed above, are Deary v. Three Un-named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3rd Cir.) and Indiana Dept. of Public Welfare v. Clark, 478 N.E.2d 699, cert. denied 476 U.S. 1170, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d...
-
Felder v. Casey, 85-1344
...apply to all actions, including actions founded on civil rights violations. The city cites Indiana Dept. of Public Welfare v. Clark, 478 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2893, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986), as an example. In Clark, the Indiana court decided that c......